11 European Police College
| (26037)
13506/04
COM(04) 623
| Draft Decision establishing the European Police College as a body of the European Union
|
| Legal base | Articles 30(1)(c) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 1 October 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 October 2004
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 3 November 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
11.1 In 2000, the Council adopted a Decision establishing the
European Police College as a network of national police training
institutes to supplement and support Member States' training
for their senior police officers in the prevention and detection
of serious crimes such as terrorism and trafficking in people,
drugs and arms.[36] The
Decision gave the College neither a legal personality nor a permanent
location. The College is financed by contributions from Member
States. The College's budget for 2004 is €3.1
million. The United Kingdom makes the second largest contribution
to the budget, amounting to nearly 18% of the total.
11.2 Earlier this year, the Council adopted Decisions
to give the College a legal personality and to name Bramshill
in Hampshire as the permanent location of the College.[37]
11.3 Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (the
EU Treaty) makes provision for police and judicial cooperation
between Member States in criminal matters. Article 30(1)(c) of
the EU Treaty provides for cooperation and joint initiatives in
police training. Article 34(2)(c) empowers the Council to adopt
Decisions for any purpose consistent with the objectives of Title
VI of the Treaty, but excluding any approximation of the laws
and regulations of Member States.
11.4 Article 291 of the Treaty on the establishment
of the European Community (the EC Treaty) provides that:
"The Community shall enjoy in the territories
of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary
for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down
in the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities
of the European Communities. The same shall apply to the European
Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute and the European
Investment Bank."
The Protocol referred to in Article 291 contains
no reference to "bodies of the European Union". Although
Article 41 EU applies a number of Articles of the EC Treaty to
activities under Title VI of the EU Treaty, it does not so apply
Article 291 EC.
The document
11.5 The document comprises a draft Decision and
an Explanatory Memorandum on it by the Commission. In the latter,
the Commission says that the effectiveness of the College has
been hampered by the absence of a legal personality, a permanent
base, direct funding from the Community's budget and the necessary
management arrangements and staff rules. The aim of the draft
Decision is to help overcome these difficulties. The main provisions
of the draft Decision are as follows.
11.6 Articles 1 and 2 propose that the College be
established "as a body of the European Union" with its
own legal personality.
11.7 Article 3 proposes that the privileges and immunities
of the European Communities should apply to the College, its director
and its staff.
11.8 Article 5 proposes a definition of the purpose
of the College. Among other things, it proposes that :
"Without prejudice to the competencies of
the institutions responsible for training of law-enforcement officers
in the Member States, the purpose of [the College] is to help
train the senior and other law-enforcement officers of the Member
States playing a key role in the fight against cross-border crime
in the European Union, with a view to strengthening and improving
cooperation in those areas most relevant to the achievement of
an area of freedom, security and justice in the sense of Article
29 of the Treaty on European Union. In so doing, [the College]
shall strive to support a European approach to the main problems
facing Member States in preventing and combating crime, organized
or otherwise, especially as regards its cross-border dimensions,
by helping to train senior and other law-enforcement officials
of the Member States…"
11.9 Article 6 proposes that the College's objectives
should be:
- to increase the number of officers
with a working understanding of the practical aspects of law enforcement
cooperation (including, for example, an understanding of law enforcement
systems in other Member States; the law and institutions of the
European Union; the roles and work of Europol and Eurojust; relevant
law on human rights; and the languages of the Member States);
- to contribute to the development of technical
and scientific knowledge about crime and the maintenance of law
and order; and
- to strengthen and improve cooperation in training
for law enforcement officers.
11.10 Article 7 proposes that the College's tasks
should be:
- to develop common standards
for training courses for law enforcement officers and provide
national training institutions with those standards and with course
modules (including modules for long-distance learning via the
European Police Knowledge Net);
- provide training for Member States' trainers;
- assess whether (and, if appropriate, certify
that) national training institutions are providing the College's
modules and methods to common standards;
- identify priorities for research in law enforcement
and commission research;
- disseminate best practice and research findings;
and
- promote training-related exchanges and secondments
of law enforcement officers.
11.11 Article 9 proposes that the Governing Board
of the College should be comprised of one representative of each
Member State and of the Commission. The Board's responsibilities
would include determining the College's budget and work plan and
nominating candidates for appointment as Director of the College.
11.12 Article 10 proposes that the Director should
be appointed by the Council for a term of five years, renewable
for a further five. The Director would be responsible for the
day-to-day management of the College and would be accountable
to the Governing Board.
11.13 Article 12 proposes that each Member State
should set up a College "national unit". The national
units would be responsible for putting into effect the modules,
methods and standards developed by the College and for evaluating
their use in national training institutions.
11.14 Article 14 proposes that the income of the
College should come from:
- an annual subsidy from the
budget of the European Union (the Governing Board would approve
an estimate for consideration by the Commission and for approval
by the European Parliament and the Council; the Commission estimates
that the subsidy would be about €4.5
million a year);
- fees for services; and
- any voluntary contributions from Member States.
11.15 Under Article 22, the Governing Board would
be required, at five-year intervals, to commission an independent
external evaluation of the implementation of the Decision and
of the efficiency and effectiveness of the College. The evaluation
reports would be sent to the Commission, the Council and the European
Parliament and be made public.
The Government's view
11.16 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us that the Commission's
proposal to transform the College into a body of the European
Union would enable it to improve its effectiveness. In the Government's
view, the proposal would not change the College's fundamental
role.
11.17 The Minister says:
"As an EU Body, CEPOL [the College] would
receive funding from the Community budget. The benefit of the
change from funding the CEPOL budget from Member State contributions
on the basis of Gross National Product to Community funding is
that CEPOL could be funded for all of its activity from a central
source rather than having to apply for top up funding from various
EU programmes…The Government believes that this would add
flexibility, improve business planning, and assist with a more
responsive and more timely programme delivery."
11.18 The Minister also says that the proposal would
improve the arrangements for the governance of the College and
for decision-making. It would make the College's objectives more
explicit and extend the College's scope to include training for
law enforcement officers generally, rather than confine it to
senior police officers. Moreover, the proposal would require the
College to evaluate the effectiveness of its work. The Government
believes that these changes would enable the College to become
more effective.
Conclusion
11.19 We recognise that cooperation between Member
States in the training of law enforcement officers can make a
valuable contribution to improving the prevention and detection
of serious cross-border crime. The European Police College has
the potential to play a major role in this. But, so far, it has
been hampered by factors outside its control, such as the present
funding mechanism and the delay in providing it with a permanent
base. We are glad, therefore, that it now has a permanent base
at Bramshill and we share the Government's view that changes along
the lines proposed in the draft Decision would be likely to enable
the College to be more effective and provide better value for
money.
11.20 We have the following questions, however,
about the provisions of the draft Decision:
- Article 1 proposes the establishment
of the College as "a body of the European Union". The
EC Treaty contains provision for the establishment of bodies of
the Community. But we are not aware of a legal base for the establishment
of bodies of the Union. We would be grateful if the Minister
could explain the significance of making the College "a body
of the European Union" when the EU Treaty does not provide
for the EU itself to enjoy legal personality.
- Article 291 of the EC Treaty does not apply
to Title VI of the EU Treaty , and neither that Article nor the
Protocol referred to in Article 291 EC refers to privileges or
immunities of the European Union or bodies of the Union. We would
be grateful if the Minister would explain the legal basis for
conferring the privileges and immunities of the European Communities
on European Union bodies.
- The approximation of the laws and regulations
of the Member States is excluded from the scope of the decisions
that may be adopted under Article 34(2)(c) of the EC Treaty. We
ask the Minister to explain why the proposal in Article 3 of the
draft Decision to confer immunities and privileges on the College,
thereby affecting in a like manner the operation of the laws of
all Member States in relation to the College, does not amount
to an approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member
States. We also ask the Minister to explain why it is thought
necessary to extend each of the privileges and immunities of the
European Communities to the College, its director and its staff
when no analogous provision has been made in relation to Eurojust.
- Article 12 of the draft Decision proposes
that every Member State should be required to appoint a "national
unit". It does not appear to us that the Commission has provided
a sufficient justification for this proposal. Moreover, it is
not clear that the requirement imposed on Member States by Article
12 would satisfy the tests for compliance with the principle of
subsidiarity.
- Article 22 of the draft Decision proposes
that there should be an independent external assessment of the
College once every five years. It seems to us, however, that an
early improvement in the effectiveness of the College is called
for and that it might be prudent, therefore, if the first evaluation
were done after three rather than five years.
11.21 Negotiations on the document have only just
begun. Both for that reason and because of our questions about
the provisions of the draft Decision, we shall keep the document
under scrutiny. We should be grateful for the Minister's answer
to the points we have raised about Articles 1, 3, 12 and 22 and
if she would keep us informed of the progress of the negotiations.
36 Council Decision 2000/820/JHA, OJ No. L 336, 30.12.00,
p.1. Back
37
OJ No. L 251, 27.7.04, p.19 and OJ No. L 251, 27. 7. 04, p. 20. Back
|
